[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#493972: ITP: etherpuppet -- create a virtual interface from a remote Ethernet interface

On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:10:46PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > What is the added value of etherpuppet over existing tools, such as
> > > openvpn, tinc, gvpe, vde2? If there is none, or if the functionality
> > > that is missing from etherpuppet can be easily integrated with one of
> > > the existing tools, then you should tell upstream that it would be
> > > better to invest time and energy in one of the other solutions.
> > 
> > Well, etherpuppet is not really something to use as a simple vpn. You
> > use it to really clone (including low level stuff) the interface on the
> > remote side.
> Ok, I see now that only one side of the etherpuppet tunnel uses a
> tun/tap device, the other side copies everything to/from a real Ethernet
> interface.
> Still, the other tools I mentioned can all handle Ethernet frames. In
> fact, tinc can be compiled to connect to a real Ethernet interface
> instead of a tun/tap device, so it might already have the capability to
> do what etherpuppet does. The advantage of these tools is that they can
> provide encryption, and some of them can connect more than two endpoints
> together.
> The reason I urge you to consider having upstream merge his
> functionality with one of the others is that otherwise there is yet
> another tunnel tool out there.

etherpuppet doesn't sound like a tunnel or VPN tool at all - it seems to
be a mirroring tool for diagnostic purposes.

I'm confused about how TUN/TAP are involved though. If I'm routing
packets between two Ethernet interfaces, can I have them copied to a

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: